Jump to content

Historical: Popular Mechanics article by Hans Fantel, June 1969


owlsplace

Recommended Posts

Fun little time capsule from 1969: Modern Hi-Fi Speakers -- Big Sound in a Small Box by Hans Fantel

AR-5, 4X, and 2X get mentioned but not the portly AR-3s :huh:

http://books.google.com/books?id=rdgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=Acoustic+Research+AR-5+speakers&source=bl&ots=m95u6oU1ek&sig=2qcc9ONgx3qB8IaN9YWqFvqdSEM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AHEgVLecAoXUiwKZ4ICQCA&ved=0CHEQ6AEwBjge#v=onepage&q=Modern%20Hi-Fi&f=false

The author was quite a character in his own right. Here's a bio from the historical collection of his works in Missouri:

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Hans Fantel was born in Vienna, Austria on 1 March 1922.
When the Nazis took over the country in 1938, his father was arrested for having vocally opposed Germany’s rearmament in the preceding years. Shortly thereafter, it was discovered that Hans’ paternal grandmother was Jewish and he was expelled from school.
Fantel escaped to Czechoslovakia and served in the underground for a time before making his way to Tunisia and befriending the American consul, who helped secure him passage on a Red Cross ship to the United States in 1941.
He worked at a picture frame factory in New York while learning English and then received a scholarship to study biology at the University of Missouri.
After his graduation in 1946, he worked as a technical translator for the U.S. Air Force in Ohio and enrolled in history and philosophy classes at Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio.
He moved to New York in the 1950s and became a freelance writer covering high fidelity and home electronics for a variety of publications. In 1958, he helped found the magazine, Hi-Fi/Stereo Review, now known as Stereo Review. From 1977 to 1995, he had two syndicated columns in the New York Times, on both audio and video home electronics.
A lifelong lover of classical music, he also wrote concert reviews and profiled musical conductors.
He published nine books, most notably biographies of Johann Strauss and William Penn.
In 1998, the government of Austria and city of Salzburg awarded Fantel medals of appreciation for his efforts at building goodwill between Austria and the United States
He met his wife Shirley “Shea” Smith, a senior copy editor for Seventeen magazine, in Greenwich Village in the early 1950s and they married a short time later.
Hans Fantel died on 21 May 2006 and Shea died on 22 June 2006.

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting article, for many reasons.

The pic of the AR-5 is the prototype, with the mid and tweeter side-by-side. AR showed this inaccurate picture in their catalog all the way through the 1971 full-line catalog, even though by then, the AR-5 was two years old. In the 1974 catalogs, AR finally started using the correct picture, with the mid and tweeter staggered, a la the 3a.

I wonder if Popular Mechanics really meant the 2ax when they said "2X." So many people were easily confused by the 2 series model numbers. The 2x was such a minor player compared to the 2ax, and the 2x was never even reviewed by one of the major magazines.

I'm also amused--but not surprised--by their inaccurate use of upper case "X" in 4X and 2X. It should be 4x and 2x of course. A major publication should get details like that correct.

Yes, Hans Fantel was quite a character. When I was at Bose in the early '90's (before I went to BA), he gave the AM-5 a great review and we considered him to be a real editorial ally.

I love this time period--the mid/late '60's. Life was just "modern" enough that we could be transported back 45 years to then and still be able to fit right in. On the other hand, it was long enough ago that many traditional things (like American manufacturing, real wood and metal--not plastic--in many items, American cars with 95% market share, a feeling of national unity about the July 1969 moon landing, etc.) were very different than today. A fascinating time period.

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting article, for many reasons.

The pic of the AR-5 is the prototype, with the mid and tweeter side-by-side. AR showed this inaccurate picture in their catalog all the way through the 1971 full-line catalog, even though by then, the AR-5 was two years old. In the 1974 catalogs, AR finally started using the correct picture, with the mid and tweeter staggered, a la the 3a.

...

I love this time period--the mid/late '60's. Life was just "modern" enough that we could be transported back 45 years to then and still be able to fit right in. On the other hand, it was long enough ago that many traditional things (like American manufacturing, real wood and metal--not plastic--in many items, American cars with 95% market share, a feeling of national unity about the July 1969 moon landing, etc.) were very different than today. A fascinating time period.

Steve F.

Agreed, those were my teenage years... tied in with the emotions of the time it is hard to be objective... but they do seem to have a certain glow upon reflection.

Nice catch on the side-by-side driver arrangement on the 5s. They must have implemented a different layout to accommodate the baffle/grill supports. I've never seen a production model that had side-by-side drivers on the 5s. The AR-11s, 12s, etc., went back to the side-by-side layout with a different grill.

Vilchur did the ad layouts prior to his leaving in 1968 so maybe he left a void in that department that took a few years to catch up.

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, those were my teenage years... tied in with the emotions of the time it is hard to be objective... but they do seem to have a certain glow upon reflection.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way (Dickens)

Maybe the glow of "the season of light" remains. Great Rock 'n Roll, the Summer of Love, Woodstock, the moon landing and all that. But let's not forget it was also the "winter of despair": Assassinations, race riots, Viet Nam, Chicago, Nixon/Agnew, Kent State.... Being in college in the late 60s I was tear gassed and had a bullet shot through my apartment window. Would not want to "romanticize" that decade.

But we DID make stuff then, and it was great stuff.

Sorry to go so far off topic.

Kent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed--the '60's were turbulent social/political times to say the least, especially for those of us in our teens to early 20's. I'm making no judgment or +/- comment on that aspect of that time period. I'll leave that to each individual unto themselves.

I just find that time period fascinating from a day-to-day living aspect. Color TV, long-distance calling, open-heart surgery, central AC, automatic transmissions, really good stereos---there are lots of examples of things that would make the '60's quite easily liveable, even for us today.

Back to AR--

Re AR and their mid-tweeter layout: AR and the industry as a whole just didn't grasp the significance of driver interference in the horizontal plane (in the near-to critical field, anyway; not so much in the far field) from horizontally-opposed mids and tweeters. The 2ax, 11, 10Pi and 12 were all completely "wrong" in that regard, since when used vertically (as they usually were), their m-t were horizontal.

The 1970 High Fidelity test report of the 2ax shows this clearly: in the on-axis curve (near-field), there is a 5dB V-notch dip at 5kHz, precisely the x-o point between the mid and tweeter. That's from horizontal interference between the drivers, with the on-axis mic placed centerline on the cabinet (between the mid and tweeter, therefore a little horizontally off-axis from both). But in the front-hemispheric and omni-directional FR curves of that review (far-field "energy" response curves), the notch is completely filled in.

The 3a and 5 with their staggered mid-tweet layout had, by pure accident, the same radiation pattern whether the cabinet was placed vertically or horizontally. But this wasn't intentional on AR's part, or else the 2ax, 10Pi, 11, and 12 would have used the same staggered arrangement. The 3a was that way because that was the only way to get the mid and tweet to fit on that small baffle. Although the mid and tweeter in the 5 would've fit just fine horizintally-opposed (as seen in the prototype photos), AR ended up staggering them, probably to mimic the 3a for marketing purposes. Certainly, there was not a mechanical-spacing fit issue on the 5, as there was on the 3a.

The AR-9 and the rest of the Vertical Series (the 90, 91, and 92) completely solved this of course, and showed the industry that you could have both interference-free horizontal FR in the near field and smooth far-field energy response. It's part of what makes the Verticals such excellent speakers. A big difference in the understanding of that from 1967 (the 3a's design timeframe) to 1977 (the 9's design timeframe).

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

The 3a and 5 with their staggered mid-tweet layout had, by pure accident, the same radiation pattern whether the cabinet was placed vertically or horizontally. But this wasn't intentional on AR's part, or else the 2ax, 10Pi, 11, and 12 would have used the same staggered arrangement. The 3a was that way because that was the only way to get the mid and tweet to fit on that small baffle. Although the mid and tweeter in the 5 would've fit just fine horizintally-opposed (as seen in the prototype photos), AR ended up staggering them, probably to mimic the 3a for marketing purposes. Certainly, there was not a mechanical-spacing fit issue on the 5, as there was on the 3a.

The AR-9 and the rest of the Vertical Series (the 90, 91, and 92) completely solved this of course, and showed the industry that you could have both interference-free horizontal FR in the near field and smooth far-field energy response. It's part of what makes the Verticals such excellent speakers. A big difference in the understanding of that from 1967 (the 3a's design timeframe) to 1977 (the 9's design timeframe).

Steve F.

Actually I think there would have been a problem on spacing the AR-5s drivers horizontally as there is a 3/8" spacer around the front of the baffle. The prototype didn't have the spacer and the baffle does not appear to be recessed in the old advertising brochures. And of course, the latter-day verticals ceased to be bookshelf speakers.

The 60s and early 70s "Sturm und Drang" crowd cherished their mobility -- floor standers wouldn't have fit the lifestyle -- as it was, I sold all my equipment in Stereo Review classifieds, hopped on my motorcycle and rode west in early '77. My audiophile days were over.

Revisiting the old ARs now is rather like reminiscing with an old friend. Any flaws seem minor. I can't imagine the current generation having fond memories of their mp3 players in another 40 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting article, for many reasons.

The pic of the AR-5 is the prototype, with the mid and tweeter side-by-side. AR showed this inaccurate picture in their catalog all the way through the 1971 full-line catalog, even though by then, the AR-5 was two years old. In the 1974 catalogs, AR finally started using the correct picture, with the mid and tweeter staggered, a la the 3a.

I wonder if Popular Mechanics really meant the 2ax when they said "2X." So many people were easily confused by the 2 series model numbers. The 2x was such a minor player compared to the 2ax, and the 2x was never even reviewed by one of the major magazines.

I'm also amused--but not surprised--by their inaccurate use of upper case "X" in 4X and 2X. It should be 4x and 2x of course. A major publication should get details like that correct.

Yes, Hans Fantel was quite a character. When I was at Bose in the early '90's (before I went to BA), he gave the AM-5 a great review and we considered him to be a real editorial ally.

I love this time period--the mid/late '60's. Life was just "modern" enough that we could be transported back 45 years to then and still be able to fit right in. On the other hand, it was long enough ago that many traditional things (like American manufacturing, real wood and metal--not plastic--in many items, American cars with 95% market share, a feeling of national unity about the July 1969 moon landing, etc.) were very different than today. A fascinating time period.

Steve F.

I generally agree with Steve about this article. I remember the article, but I think it was (as a whole) was largely directed at the relatively uninformed, novice audio reader, and the details of the article seemed to have been formulated by more than one writer other than Hans Fantel himself, an accomplished writer (but not great technically). I recall that Fantel was relatively pro-AR during the day.

By the way, Fantel would probably have mentioned the AR-3a rather than the AR-3, since the article was written a couple of years after the introduction of the AR-3a. But in any event, there seemed to be more of an emphasis on middle-of-the-road and high-value-per-dollar bookshelf-type speakers rather than all-out powerhouses. Thus, the AR-5, AR-2ax and the AR-4x probably fit the bill best for this article.

The Electro-Voice "examples" shown in one picture were not totally apt for a description of modern loudspeakers; these were more appropriate for speakers about a generation earlier, but Fantel did describe how small bookshelf speakers were capable of big performance, or something to that effect.

That picture of the AR-5—depicting the mid and tweeter side-by-side in the earliest prototype and production cabinet—was used for quite awhile in the press by AR before the later picture was being used. AR did actually manufacture a few AR-5s with the side-by-side cabinet before the switch to the staggered arrangement used throughout the later years, so it's hard to say that the picture was "inaccurate." I don't know how many were made this way before the switch, but it wasn't just the prototype. Relative to the later versions, it probably did not depict the speaker properly.

—Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting article, for many reasons.

The pic of the AR-5 is the prototype, with the mid and tweeter side-by-side. AR showed this inaccurate picture in their catalog all the way through the 1971 full-line catalog, even though by then, the AR-5 was two years old. In the 1974 catalogs, AR finally started using the correct picture, with the mid and tweeter staggered, a la the 3a.

I wonder if Popular Mechanics really meant the 2ax when they said "2X." So many people were easily confused by the 2 series model numbers. The 2x was such a minor player compared to the 2ax, and the 2x was never even reviewed by one of the major magazines.

I'm also amused--but not surprised--by their inaccurate use of upper case "X" in 4X and 2X. It should be 4x and 2x of course. A major publication should get details like that correct.

Yes, Hans Fantel was quite a character. When I was at Bose in the early '90's (before I went to BA), he gave the AM-5 a great review and we considered him to be a real editorial ally.

I love this time period--the mid/late '60's. Life was just "modern" enough that we could be transported back 45 years to then and still be able to fit right in. On the other hand, it was long enough ago that many traditional things (like American manufacturing, real wood and metal--not plastic--in many items, American cars with 95% market share, a feeling of national unity about the July 1969 moon landing, etc.) were very different than today. A fascinating time period.

Steve F.

I generally agree with Steve about this article. I remember the article, but I think it was (as a whole) was largely directed at the relatively uninformed, novice audio reader, and the details of the article seemed to have been formulated by more than one writer other than Hans Fantel himself, an accomplished writer (but not great technically). I recall that Fantel was relatively pro-AR during the day.

By the way, Fantel would probably have mentioned the AR-3a rather than the AR-3, since the article was written a couple of years after the introduction of the AR-3a. But in any event, there seemed to be more of an emphasis on middle-of-the-road and high-value-per-dollar bookshelf-type speakers rather than all-out powerhouses. Thus, the AR-5, AR-2ax and the AR-4x probably fit the bill best for this article.

The Electro-Voice "examples" shown in one picture were not totally apt for a description of modern loudspeakers; these were more appropriate for speakers about a generation earlier, but Fantel did describe how small bookshelf speakers were capable of big performance, or something to that effect.

That picture of the AR-5—depitcing the mid and tweeter side-by-side in the earliest prototype and production cabinet—was used for quite awhile in the press by AR before the later picture was being used. AR did actually manufacture a few AR-5s with the side-by-side cabinet before the switch to the staggered arrangement used throughout the later years, so it's hard to say that the picture was "inaccurate." I don't know how many were made this way before the switch, but it wasn't just the prototype. Relative to the later versions, it probably did not depict the speaker properly.

—Tom Tyson

post-100160-0-26944600-1411574071_thumb.

post-100160-0-42532000-1411574127_thumb.

post-100160-0-62686100-1411574185_thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

That picture of the AR-5—depitcing the mid and tweeter side-by-side in the earliest prototype and production cabinet—was used for quite awhile in the press by AR before the later picture was being used. AR did actually manufacture a few AR-5s with the side-by-side cabinet before the switch to the staggered arrangement used throughout the later years, so it's hard to say that the picture was "inaccurate." I don't know how many were made this way before the switch, but it wasn't just the prototype. Relative to the later versions, it probably did not depict the speaker properly.

—Tom Tyson

Thanks for that, Tom. That would make a side-by-side AR-5 highly collectible. The hunt is on :)

Care to guess how many were produced out of the total 35,000 AR-5 run?

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably very few were made that way. I suspect that AR spec'd the cabinet with the side-by-side drivers initially, and then decided that it would work better (and fit the better as well) with the staggered AR-3a-style mounting. Once the inventory was depleted, there would have been a switch to the newer style. As Steve points out, the "vertical alignment" of the original version would perform better with regard to interference effects if the speaker was mounted in the horizontal plane, whereas the later version was the same in either orientation. In any event, it mattered not, as the speaker would sound the same back in the reverberant field regardless of the mounting orientation of the drivers, so it was sort of a moot point.

Also, if you look closely at the earlier version, the mid-range driver is nearly touching the edge molding, and this was very close. There might have been an issue of potential air leaks or cabinet splitting at the edge, and AR probably used up what they had and then migrated to the newer cabinet.

--Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that, Tom. That would make a side-by-side AR-5 highly collectible. The hunt is on :)

Care to guess how many were produced out of the total 35,000 AR-5 run?

Roger

Roger, there were more than 35,000 AR-5s. Here is a serial tag on #44,016, an AR-5 made in Norwood somewhere in the post 1973 period, probably 1974 or 75.

--Tom

post-100160-0-76760000-1411609542_thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger, there were more than 35,000 AR-5s. Here is a serial tag on #44,016, an AR-5 made in Norwood somewhere in the post 1973 period, probably 1974 or 75.

--Tom

Okay, so they were cranking out 500/mo. RoyC gave me the impression they only made 35,000.

Any idea when the first ad came out promoting the 5 as an "3a Jr" model? That may help pin down how many of the prototype baffle design were produced.

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so they were cranking out 500/mo. RoyC gave me the impression they only made 35,000.

Roger

Hmmm....I don't when I would have done that. Tom and I have shared a number of notes on this issue. The mid 40,000's seem to be it for the AR-5. In fact, I believe I sent Tom the photo he posted.

Roy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AR-5 image actually was posted on eBay (someone listing a pair of AR-5s), and I think Roy sent me the image. In any event, the AR-5s were close to the end by this time.

The AR-5 disappeared from the dealer price list by March 1975, as AR was gearing up for the new Advanced Development Division speakers at this point. In early 1976, Peter Dyke, National Sales Manager at AR in Norwood, sent out an update to dealers offering AR-5s at a reduced price when bought in quantities of 12-24 speakers, and this was probably the last big push to clear out inventories. Therefore, there were probably no more AR-5s available from the company after mid 1976, and that mid-40k serial-number range is probably accurate.

--Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm....I don't when I would have done that. Tom and I have shared a number of notes on this issue. The mid 40,000's seem to be it for the AR-5. In fact, I believe I sent Tom the photo he posted.

Roy

Well, either way, not very many were produced. I doubt anyone on the production line world have imagined people would still be listening to them forty years later. SteveF was on to something there -- no one in the 60s was listening to speakers made in the 20s and more than likely no one in 2050 will be listening to speakers made today -- they may be listening to classic period ARs though.

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, either way, not very many were produced. I doubt anyone on the production line world have imagined people would still be listening to them forty years later. SteveF was on to something there -- no one in the 60s was listening to speakers made in the 20s and more than likely no one in 2050 will be listening to speakers made today -- they may be listening to classic period ARs though.

Roger

If they are it will be due to historical status, and a pinch of sonic myth, not because they are the "best" speakers of the past half century...and there is no way the original tweeters will last that long. Those relics are already pretty much done tweeting. :)

Roy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are it will be due to historical status, and a pinch of sonic myth, not because they are the "best" speakers of the past half century...and there is no way the original tweeters will last that long. Those relics are already pretty much done tweeting. :)

Roy

Roy,

Very true on the tweeters. FedEx ground dropped off one of a two package speaker shipment today -- go figure -- early '70 production AR-5. The drivers were all set in duct seal and the cabinet appears to have never been opened. The surround material on the tweeter is basically absent and there is some oxidation on the face of the driver. The caps were all way over spec. Haven't pulled the pots yet but they feel rough. Cabinet is not bad though -- in oiled-walnut, of course. So looking at HiVi tweeter replacement and maybe L-pads.

Is there a sticky on the tweeter/L-pad mod somewhere? If not, I will scour the archives and do a thread on it.

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...